Search Documents

Jan 1, 1993

Jan 1, 1998

By Brian Wilson, Franz-Werner Gerressen

"Cutter Soil Mixing, also known as CSM, was developed in Europe as an alternate method of Deep Mixing to the more traditional single and multiple auger techniques, and brought to market by Bauer Maschinen GmbH (Bauer), towards the end of 2003. Initial development of the technique had been completed in a joint venture between Bauer and Bachy Soletanche. In 2004 the concept was introduced to the North American market. Continued development of the method and demonstration of its versatility, both in terms of applications and applicable soil types has seen a steady growth in the number of designs incorporating the approach, and contractors offering the technique. This paper provides a brief overview of the variety and size of projects and applications where the method has been adopted, discusses some lessons learned with respect to equipment operation as well as the improvements that have been introduced to the equipment, and briefly reviews the current state of practice, as well as some of the associated on-going research and development.BACKGROUNDCutter Soil Mixing (CSM) is a technique for deep soil mixing that was initially developed as a collaborative effort between Bauer Maschinen (Bauer) and Bachy Soletanche, but which ultimately resulted in the separate development of two somewhat different brands of CSM tool. The Bauer brand of CSM entered the European market in 2004, and was first promoted in the North American market in late 2004, with the first project starting in 2005. The Bachy Soletanche brand, sometimes referred to as “Geomix” was first marketed in Europe in 2005 and the first model introduced in North America in 2007.The development of the Cutter Soil Mixing technique utilized the experiences gained from Trench Cutter/Hydrofraise equipment, developing a technique that incorporates two cutting wheels rotating about a horizontal axis as opposed to the more conventional deep soil mixing approach which utilizes augers and mixing paddles rotating about vertical axes. Whereas the Trench Cutter/Hydrofraise technique excavates the soil from within a panel, and supports the open hole using a bentonite slurry, the CSM technique cuts and displaces the soil whilst pumping a slurry/grout directly into the soil through a port located between the wheels. The combination of cutting the soil while introducing an appropriate volume of slurry effectively fluidizes the column of soil around and above the cutter head. While this process achieves a high degree of mixing, even on the downward cutting stroke, thorough in-situ mixing typically occurs on the withdrawal stroke, when most of the slurry is added."

Jan 1, 2015

By H. Boghosian

This paper presents the design and construction of a deep basement in a steeply sloping site in glacial till in Glasgow city centre. Existing foundations, adjacent structures and services, in tandem with asymmetric loading, presented particular challenges in the planning, execution and design of the project. The construction methods and temporary works, analysis by the Finite Element method and monitoring carried out are all described.

Jan 1, 2006

By Mario Aiezza

This paper outlines the results of a relationship developed during the design and construction of the foundations for the Gallery Towers project in Melbourne. Both the builder and the piling contractor were determined to arrive at a satisfactory foundation solution to the problems encountered at the site. The scope of piling work was to provide load-bearing piles under the building columns, some of which were located within a retention system that also required a piling solution. Geological conditions were variable and challenging. The site area was small and located adjacent to the National Arts Centre in the developed Southbank area, a high density office area. This presented logistical problems in limiting construction traffic on site and also demanding minimal noise and vibration emanating from piling activities. The piling contractor, Vibro-Pile, and the builder, Walter Construction Group, faced the challenges presented with a refreshing cooperative attitude that was beneficial to both companies. Commercial issues rising from design and construction problems were first put apart in order to allow the respective technical department of each company to work with minimum constraints to achieve the most cost effective solution. In the process usual adversarial attitudes resulting in loss of time and money was avoided. A number of issues were addressed successfully at minimum cost and time during this contract. Despite the difficulties encountered, the job was completed on time and with negligible claims for extras, resulting in the development of a strong mutual respect between both companies.

Jan 1, 2002

By Athul Prabhakaran, Ramin Motamed, Ahmed Elgamal, Milad Jahed Orang, Reza Boushehri

Documented case histories from past earthquakes have exhibited the devastating effects of the liquefaction phenomenon on the performance of buildings that are often presented in the form of excessive settlement of shallow foundations. Example earthquakes include the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan, and more recently the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence in New Zealand, and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan. All of the listed events comprised several examples of severe liquefaction-related damage to the buildings founded on shallow foundations. Although the liquefaction-induced building settlements have been experimentally studied extensively since 1964 using shake table tests and dynamic centrifuge experiments, studies focusing on cost-effective mitigation strategies are still limited. In this study, the performance of helical piles as a cost-effective countermeasure to minimize the damaging effects of liquefaction-induced ground settlements on buildings founded on shallow foundations is studied. Two large-scale shake table experiments were conducted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) to investigate the effectiveness of helical piles in liquefiable grounds. Results from these two experiments highlight a highly improved performance of a shallow foundation supported on helical piles. These largescale shaking table experiments demonstrate the efficiency of using helical piles as a cost-effective countermeasure to reduce the liquefaction-induced building settlement.

By Timothy C. Siegel

This report presents the results of a synthesis on the design and analysis of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. The synthesis included an industry survey concerning the practice of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. Participation in the survey was solicited by advertisements in several trade magazines and by e-mail for the DFI membership. The survey participants numbered 150. Their professional roles include consulting engineers, specialty contractors, design engineers, government engineers, and academicians. They represent a variety of geographical areas including North/Central/South America, United Kingdom, Middle East, Caribbean, Hawaii, Japan, India, Egypt, France, Australia and New Zealand. Upon completion of the survey, several professionals in the field of liquefaction and ground improvement were interviewed for them to elaborate on the survey results. The interviews are included in the Appendix of this report. Financial support for the project was provided by DFI and Dan Brown and Associates PC. The concept of the liquefaction mitigation synthesis was developed by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee in recognition that: (a) The results of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have challenged previously longheld beliefs about liquefaction and associated mitigation techniques, and; (b) The DFI membership and the engineering/construction industry are interested to know if and how engineers and designers are subsequently adjusting their practice in consideration of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance. For more detailed information on recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance, presentations are available from the State-of-the-Art Forum: Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation that was held in St. Louis in 2012. A commentary of the state-of-practice in ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation (prepared by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) is included in this issue of the DFI Journal. The author would like to thank the participants of the survey and especially Mr. Mike Jeffries, Dr. Les Youd, and Dr. Ikuo Towhata for their willingness to share their expertise in interviews. The author also acknowledges Mary Ellen Bruce of DFI, Billy Camp of S&ME, Inc., and Marty Taube of DGI Menard (and Chair of DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) for their signifi cant contributions.

Aug 1, 2013

Jan 1, 1986

By Steve Davidow, Nick Salisbury

"The Sunrise Powerlink project received numerous industry awards for excellence. The DFI C. William Bermingham Innovation Award recognized the innovative use of prefabricated steel micropile caps to increase safety, accelerate project schedule and minimize the project carbon footprint. DFI’s Outstanding Project Award (OPA) and World Cup of Micropiles Challenge Award honored the project as a whole and its positive outcome and industry example. Sunrise Powerlink involved construction of San Diego Gas and Electric’s (SDG&E’s) new 117 mile (188 km) 500/230 kilovolt transmission line from Imperial County to San Diego County, Calif. The alignment traversed a wide variety of geotechnical conditions, including desert, mountain and marine environments, and many of the 421 lattice tower structures used to carry the transmission lines were located in remote, rugged or environmentally-sensitive terrain.Micropiles were introduced as a solution to foundation construction in these challenging areas, which ultimately involved the design and application of Crux Subsurface Inc.’s patented steel micropile cap at 234 tower locations. This was the inaugural application of the technology, and a significant component to ensuring a successful project outcome. Foundation ChallengesThe alignment crossed a number of protected environments, including National Forest land, critical habitat for bald eagles and Peninsular big horn sheep, and numerous private properties. As a result of the remote, rugged terrain, it was initially determined that 75 lattice tower locations would not permit road construction access and would require helicopter-only construction techniques. A strict in-service date combined with long permitting lead times eventually increased this number to 234 sites. Preconstruction access constraints prohibited site-specific geotechnical sampling, so initial foundation designs were completed using only available seismic geophysical surveying and preliminary mapping data. The combination of these challenges required a foundation alternative that could accommodate variable subsurface conditions, required a minimal environmental footprint for installation, and featured lightweight materials and equipment that could be transported by helicopter."

Jan 1, 2014

By James R. Gingery, Byron Foster, Bret Lingwall

While microzonation and setbacks are the typical mitigation for structures exposed to surface fault rupture hazards, lifelines and lifeline facilities are not easily relocated to avoid faulting. In these cases, other remedial measures including ground improvement may be warranted. Deep soil mixing ground improvement was used in this case to mitigate surface fault rupture and liquefaction hazards for a pump station at a wastewater treatment plant with wet wells up to 36-feet (11-m) deep. Paleoseismic field investigations were performed to characterize the site, then deterministic and probabilistic fault rupture displacement estimates were made and used to develop design scenarios. The fault rupture mitigation design consisted of a solid block of DSM encompassing and protecting the pump station and its wet wells. Three dimensional soil-structure interaction numerical modeling of the fault rupture scenarios was performed as part of the design. The analyses showed the fault rupture displacements could be diverted by the DSM and that satisfactory structure performance could be achieved. The design required construction of a large 100 percent replacement ratio block of DSM with a compressive strength of 500 psi. Aspects of construction of this DSM block are discussed.

Sep 8, 2021

By Richard W. Hanford

The geotechnical construction industry generally considers soil mixing to be defined as an in situ ground improvement or treatment method by which a dry or wet reagent is introduced into the ground and is blended with the soil by mechanical or rotary mixing tools. This results in relatively homogenous mixtures whose engineering properties are improved and are greater than the soil properties before mixing. Reagents usually include cement, but may also include processed clay such as bentonite, when a reduction in hydraulic conductivity is desired, or other proprietary chemicals when chemical stabilization is the objective. Mixing may be either shallow or deep. Shallow Mixing is the term arbitrarily used for treatment of soils within the upper 30 feet; Deep Mixing denotes treatment below 30 feet to the depth limits of the equipment. Mixing equipment may consist of single or multiple-shaft tools having cutting and mixing blades of many different configurations. To avoid using proprietary nomenclature, reference to Shallow Mixing Methods (SMM) and Deep Mixing Methods (DMM) are the preferred terms. Although originally developed and patented in the United States in 1956, in situ construction using various soil mixing methods is more prevalent in Japan and the Scandinavian countries. Reintroduced into the United States from Japan in 1986 for ground improvement and liquefaction mitigation at Jackson Lake Dam, Wyoming, acceptance of soil mixing methods has been gradual but slow. Applications typically include:

Jan 1, 2001

By Martin D. Larisch

The construction of diaphragm walls and most large-diameter bored piles (piers) is often carried out under drilling support fluids to temporarily stabilise the excavation prior to concrete placement. In most cases such fluids are either mineral-based slurries (bentonite) or polymer support fluids. The working mechanisms of these two fluid types are fundamentally different. Designers need to consider possible fluid-related impacts on the permanent design performance of the project-specific deep foundations as well as for the temporary excavation stage during construction. Robust design methods for bentonite slurry-supported excavations have been developed in the last few decades and the working principles and associated risks of such mineral-based slurries are understood reasonably well. However, such meth-ods have not been developed in detail for polymer-based drilling fluids. This document provides a brief overview of the main characteristics of bentonite- and polymer-based drilling fluids as a guide for construction practitioners and design engineers alike. The paper also high-lights some common construction risks related to casing installation and the selection of suitable fluid systems for different ground conditions. Typical defects caused by the incorrect application of drilling support fluids, and their pro-active mitigation, are discussed, too. In addition, the basic concepts of sta-bility calculations for bentonite fluid-supported deep excavations are briefly introduced and their ap-plicability for other fluid types such as polymer-based support fluids or water are reviewed.

Nov 1, 2022

Jan 1, 1994

By James S. Graham

Research at the University of Colorado on southern pine and Douglas-fir piling has determined that the existing building code design stress values of 1200 psi and 1250 psi, as determined by ASTM D-2899, are substantiated; but testing procedures should be revised. All full size piling tests should be standardized at 1/d ratios of 2:1, or confined tests performed. Also, it has been determined that theoretical design values for timber piling should not be based on the lumber criteria of D-245 and D-2555, but instead should follow the pattern set by engineers in the utility industry for timber poles, in accordance with ANSI 05.1.

Jan 1, 1986

By Heinrich Majewski, Rob Jameson

"Careful review of site conditions and constraints is essential to select the appropriate shoring system for each project. Key evaluation criteria include the geotechnical profile, groundwater and environmental conditions, adjacent buildings and utilities, schedule and any project specific access or other constraints. Typical earth retention schemes range from rock or soil nail walls, through conventional anchored pile and lagging walls to deep internally braced cut-off systems. The Owner’s design team will often develop the conceptual approach under their design studies, and this is refined with Contractor input through Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build procurement. In downtown San Francisco, underground construction must accommodate a unique combination of variable fill, soil, rock and groundwater conditions, potential for severe seismic loadings, and constrained sites within a dense urban environment. The quarter square mile of San Francisco’s Transbay and Rincon Hill districts has seen repeated cycles of development, destruction and re-building through earthquakes and the economy, and has been intensely redeveloped over the last decade. Over 50 acres of this land has been reclaimed from the Bay since the Gold Rush and within 3 city blocks the bedrock slopes from over 250 FT depth below the fills up to outcrops over 100 FT above sea level. A series of project examples from within this small area illustrate how varied shoring systems have accommodated the highly variable subsurface conditions while offering best value in terms of cost, schedule and appropriate protection of adjacent facilities.INTRODUCTIONA walk of 3 blocks from Rincon Hill on San Francisco’s Harrison Street, north through the Transbay area to Mission Street will traverse an urban zone which has been reinvented twice within its 150 year history in response to major seismic events. This small area highlights the range of subsurface conditions and urban environments which are encountered and accommodated in shoring schemes throughout the city. This route down the north side of Rincon Hill overlies a steep bedrock slope, outcropping over 100 FT above sea level at its south end and dropping to over 250 FT below sea level at Mission Street. A complex overburden soil profile, shaped by seismic activity and changing sea-levels has created layered soils ranging from soft estuary muds, dense sandy strata and deep clay layers, in turn topped with urban fill, frequently contaminated with debris from the Great 1906 earthquake. This route runs parallel to, and 350 yards inland of, the San Francisco shoreline resulting in groundwater elevation close to sea level with almost limitless recharge within granular layers. On the higher slopes of Rincon Hill, groundwater is typically observed flowing on top of and periodically within the fractured bedrock formation. The Transbay and Rincon areas were developed early in the Gold Rush era of San Francisco. After destruction in the 1906 earthquake and fire, they became a transit gateway into the city throughout the 20th Century. Demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway in response to earthquake damage and social pressure has opened this large area to redevelopment within the last 20 years, creating a new commercial and residential hub for the city. In its latest wave of building, planners are developing taller structures with deeper basements, in turn creating new construction challenges. Selection of shoring systems appropriate for these developments requires detailed evaluation. The process must address both the rapid spatial changes in subsurface conditions and the constraints surrounding, and specific to, each site in order to define shoring performance requirements. This paper presents an overview of the subsurface conditions and land use development of the Transbay and Rincon Hill areas, with examples of the shoring systems selected to meet site-specific conditions and requirements. The projects cited range from soil nail wall"

Jan 1, 2017

By Alexander Ciccone, John H. Gill

Jet grouting is a highly versatile ground modification technique that can offer significant commercial and technical advantages over traditional concrete pit underpinning applications. Despite these advantages, jet grouting remains an underutilized technique in the construction industry due to its perceived complexity, cost, and risk. When performed thoughtfully, underpinning by jet grouting offers significant safety and schedule advantages over traditional underpinning approaches. The New England construction market has seen a recent acceptance in the use of jet grout underpinning on congested project sites across a variety of subsurface conditions. The reduction of the cement batch plant footprint due to equipment advances has allowed the use of this technique in urban sites where its use would be previously infeasible. Furthermore, jet grout underpinning has been utilized for support of historic and sensitive structures with generally lower tolerance to settlement than is typically feasible with conventional pit underpinning. Robust, real-time geotechnical instrumentation monitoring systems have helped reduce the uncertainty and further expand the feasibility of jet grout underpinning applications. When properly designed and constructed by qualified and experienced jet grouting contractors, the flexibility of soilcrete for design and construction may be utilized to overcome the many inherent challenges which complicate underpinning and earth retention systems. INTRODUCTION The construction of buildings and infrastructure in our increasingly dense urban spaces often requires excavations below the elevation of existing structures immediately adjacent to the proposed work. Where a proposed excavation system encroaches into an existing structure’s zone of influence, additional measures, such as the construction of an underpinning or excavation support system, are required to safely excavate and minimize the impacts on the adjacent structures. Jet grouting is one method of underpinning that offers significant commercial and technical advantages over many other techniques. Though it was first used to the United States in the 1980s and has grown in popularity elsewhere, jet grout underpinning remains underutilized domestically due to its perceived cost and risk premium. Jet grouting has significant technical advantages over other underpinning methods due to its applicability in a wide range of soil types and its flexibility of design and installation. The jet grouting process is capable of limiting the movement of foundations during construction and excavation to lower thresholds than most traditional underpinning methods (Droof, Furth, & Scarborough, 1995). Its use for underpinning historic and sensitive structures with lower settlement criteria provides additional evidence to its technical utility. Through thoughtful design, adequate planning, and experienced installation, jet grouting can be an appropriate underpinning solution that can provide significant cost and schedule savings.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1998

By Cory McElprang, Enamul Hoque, Aaron Thomas, Scott A. Jacobs

Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) only evaluates concrete on the inside of reinforcing cages leaving the outside unevaluated unless other types of testing are performed such as Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL). While there have been some reports of PSL testing having accurately identified anomalies (e.g. Samtani et al 2005), experience by Case Foundation Company has indicated otherwise where false positives were determined with subsequent coring. Numerous cases of PSL false positives are presented as well as a study where a shaft was installed with both inside and outside tubes, and CSL and PSL data were compared. To date, there is very limited data published on perimeter sonic logging, or Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL) with tubes on the exterior of drilled shafts. Several cases will be presented where false positives were experienced where PSL testing was performed. In addition, a direct comparison will also be presented where a shaft was installed with both tubes on the inside and outside where CSL and PSL data is compared. BRIEF HISTORY – CSL TESTING AND TUBES ON INSIDE The general procedure of Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing includes attaching tubes to the reinforcing cage to be able to send a transmitter in one tube and a receiver in another tube with which a sonic pulse is emitted from the transmitter and received in another tube. The time taken for the sonic pulse to travel between the tubes is measured and compared to expected values for the known distance between the tubes. Any increase in time from expected values indicates the sonic pulse traveled through a media other than homogeneous concrete such as objects in the path (spacer wheels, steel bracing, etc.), tube spacing, or soil inclusions. However, variations in arrival time can also result from differences in concrete density. The tubes have traditionally been placed on the interior of the reinforcing cage which protects them during hoisting and placement of the cage and reduces wave refraction caused by modulus of elasticity differences between steel and concrete. This allows the concrete within the interior of the reinforcing cage to be evaluated, but the concrete outside of the cage is excluded from traditional CSL testing. As a result, alternative integrity testing has been developed to not only provide different ways to evaluate the integrity of drilled shafts but to also address the issue of evaluating the concrete outside of the reinforcing cage. These alternative testing methods include Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL), Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP testing) and Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL) which is similar to CSL testing but instead of the tubes placed inside the reinforcing cage, the tubes are placed on the outside of the reinforcing cage as shown in Fig. 1.

Jan 1, 2019

By David H. Sanders, Ramin Motamed, Fahim M. Bhuiyan, Raj V. Siddharthan

Large-diameter drilled shafts (DS) are a critical part of a seismic-resistant system, and therefore it is important to be able to accurately model lateral resistance. To undertake the lateral load analysis of largediameter DS, a finite-difference p-y analysis program, NVShaft, is being developed at the University of Nevada Reno. Validation of the new program involved numerous p-y analyses using commercially available programs. Subsequent comparisons suggested the program's ability to yield reasonable predictions for typical diameter DS. Based on the I-15/US 95 load test program carried out in Las Vegas, NV, this study presents the evaluation of NVShaft in Nevada’s subsurface condition. Lateral load analyses of a 2 ft and an 8 ft diameter DS were attempted using NVShaft. The location of the applied lateral loads and the presence of cemented soil-layers were incorporated in the modeling. A good agreement between NVShaft prediction and the measured response was found for the 2 ft diameter DS. For the 8 ft diameter DS, a stiffer response was predicted. The inspections of the moment-curvature characteristics at different load levels suggested cracked response of the concrete due to prior axial load testing may be one of the reasons behind the deviation.

Jan 1, 2004